55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd. v. CIT

231 ITR 849High Court1998#11321 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144B Section 115BBE Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

double taxation section 133 income-tax officer section 133(6)previous year section 13 section 144 transfer section 143 person company section 14

Judgments citing 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…n'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), that commercial expediency has to be emphasized on for deciding whether payment of money is a deductible expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Kirloskar Tractors Limited [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bom), it was held that the purpose of the expenditure and the effect should be considered from a common sense angle having due regard to the business realities. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several other cases, inter alia: • CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) • India Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (…

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…r section 37(1) of the Act, since it satisfies all the aforementioned conditions. vii. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: • Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 147 Taxman 428 (Allahabad High Court) • CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) • J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi High Court) • DCIT v. Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd I.T.A .No. 1579/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) & S. A No. 217/Del/2017 in • CIT v. Luwa India Ltd. ([2012] 18 taxmann.com 365 (Kar.)) 26.4 Based on above judicial dec…

M/S. Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 280/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

…ion in the case of CIT • v. Luwa India Ltd [2012] 18 taxmann.com 365 (Kar.) Samsung India Electronics Private v. ACIT [I.T.A. No. • 5316/Del/2011] Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT147 Taxman 428 • (Allahabad High Court) • CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi • High Court) DCIT v. Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd I.T.A .No. • 1579/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) & S. A No. 217/Del/2017 in ITA No. 1579/Del/2017 132. The ld AR submitted that the ratio laid down by these judicial pron…

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

…ection 37(1) of the Act, since it satisfies all the aforementioned conditions. 113. In this regard, reliance was placed on following decisions:  Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 147 Taxman 428 (Allahabad High Court)  CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC)  Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) Continental Automotive Components India Pvt.Ltd. Page 78 of 97  J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi High Court)  DCIT v. Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd I.T.A .No. 1579/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) & S. A No. 217/Del/2017 in ITA No. 1579/Del/2017 114. Ba…

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

…r section 37(1) of the Act, since it satisfies all the aforementioned conditions. viii. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: • Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT147 Taxman 428 (Allahabad High Court) • CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) • J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi High Court) • DCIT v. Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd I.T.A .No. 1579/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) & S. A No. 217/Del/2017 in ITA No. 1579/Del/2017 ix. Based on above judicial decisions, the factors to be considered and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…nder section 37(1) of the Act. In support the Ld.AO relied on: CIT vs.Pandian Chemicals reported in 233 ITR 497 Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. vs. CIT reorted in 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 290 CIT vs.Kirloskar Tractors Ltd reported in 231 ITR 849 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.CIT(A) while considering disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22,68,217/-. The Ld.CIT(A) directed Ld.AO to…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…ll as manner of payment would be immaterial. The aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the expenditure whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. (231 ITR 849) held that the assessee had only a right to use know-how but it could not assign, encumber, let or sub-lease the same and the know-how continued to be the property of the supplier. Therefore, since the assessee did not acquire the know-how, the expenditure incurred in this respect was allowable as revenue expenditure. Similarly, the Hon’ble Calcu…